Entire paper should not be retracted on basis of some inconclusive findings

Even Dr Hayes conceded that “the
number of animals used may have been sufficient to reach conclusions regarding
oral toxicity”. Yet
in retracting the whole paper based on the inconclusive nature of some of its
observations, he has erased these critical toxicological findings from the
scientific record.

Papers
are accepted (or not) for publication based on the whole. The peer review
process identifies and communicates to the author any specific elements needing
revision or clarification by additional research.

The
main findings of the Séralini study, in line with its intention to explore
issues of chronic toxicity, consist of statistically significant toxic effects
on the liver, kidneys and pituitary gland, and disruption to sex hormones. The
number of rats per group was the same as is recommended to be analyzed for
blood and urine chemistry in the OECD chronic toxicity protocol,[1]
meaning that the conclusions drawn on these findings are valid.

Even Dr Hayes conceded that “the
number of animals used may have been sufficient to reach conclusions regarding
oral toxicity”.[2] Yet
in retracting the whole paper based on the inconclusive nature of some of its
observations – on tumours and mortality – he has erased these critical toxicological
findings from the scientific record.

This decision to “throw out the baby with the
bathwater” is scientifically unjustifiable. The toxicological findings have potentially serious
implications for human and animal health and must remain in the record. Erasing
them from the record obstructs scientific progress, which relies on researchers
being able to read, evaluate and build on the original findings in order to
dispute, qualify, or confirm them.